Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded✔ FIXED

My bet is that Campy will be partnering with some of the "big" and/or influential frame builders to introduce a new standard oversized BB shell. An oversized BB shell would seem to be a good idea for mating up to the already huge down tubes, etc. seen on most carbon and Alu frames (just look at a Scott, Cervelo, and a few others who do it already then use an alu insert to bring it back down to the current threaded size). Cannondale and Pinnarello doing their own thing too already........ Who knows, maybe Campy would even use aluminun for such an oversized alu spindle much like their hubs........? I'm actually holding off buying a new carbon frame until the real news comes out for sure.

Outside bearings are not very good for clearance for your heels/ankles - it is a bandage solution.

Last edited by tommasini on Wed May 04, 2005 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It would be a real bad idea to just come across with a new system, that won't offer an effective progress - of course everybody has to buy a new frame because nobody wants to ride "old" parts. But the industry will do a good deal ... Even if there will be no advantage.

I just talked with the guys at Campy USA. None of them have been given any information about a new crank or bb. They do admit that alot of the time campy doesn't tell them until they are ready to release something. But they do say that usually rumors will float around the building about new products and they have heard none about a new crank/bb. He says he would be really surprised to see a new one for 2006.

While I anticipate a possible change, I believe there is a bit of room for improvement and hope they are looking at that. For instance the campy drive side bearing pair is a smaller OD than nondrive - if they pumped up the drive side bearings to a slightly larger ID (thus the OD would also increase if same size balls) or went with roller bearings on the drive side that should buy a little bit of stiffness by increasing the spindle diameter in that region. The smaller diameter at the crankarm mating point would still remain though..........

Bear in mind that even besides Cannondale's SI and Pinarello's MOST there was an industry "standard" group formed some time ago for exactly this, the MegaTech standard. This came out before Pinarello made their MOST and has been used by some builders in the US already.

This whole "stiffer crank/BB" topic gets ridiculous. Even IF a small gain can be made over the square taper design, it is insignificant and not worth the money and effort to change it. A gain in weight reduction, reliability, better fit/comfort, lower cost, etc. might be, but IMO not for some perceived greater stiffness. I guess some people will believe anything.

I highly doubt if Campy were to change their standard that they would go along with Mega Tech or any other one. If you want Campy you're going to have to generally buy Campy, not someone else's knock-off. How many mfg's are making Campy-type BB's now? Not many - you have Phil Wood and TA mainly.

Bear in mind that even besides Cannondale's SI and Pinarello's MOST there was an industry "standard" group formed some time ago for exactly this, the MegaTech standard. This came out before Pinarello made their MOST and has been used by some builders in the US already.

This megatech looks interesting. I am going to be having a custom Ti Frame built later this summer and might see if he can make the bottom bracket to this standard. Anyone know the weight of such a configuration? This would be great since it would have larger bearings but still be able to use ISIS cranks.

You make a very good point. The whole stiffness thing is a touch over-rated when it comes to cranks. But aside from that, the great advantage of the new DAce setup over the traditional campy setup is the ease of installation and adjustment. It is so damn simple. I used campy years ago and the bottom bracket was a real pain. The lockrings always stripped because the indentations were so shallow. Shimano has always had such better engagement between the tool and the cup/lockring.

Never stripped a campy lockring in my life (and I fitted and removed over 200! so far).
the removal of the new DA lockrings on the other side (or at least the tool) is a pain in the ass. Got to buy the expensive park tool remover to get them off without damage/scratchings.

Both systems are good that is DA is stiffer (but only petacchi can tell the difference) and a campy bb runs smoother from the start (DA has to run in).
Think that the indestructable Phil Wood of 150 gramms in my CR1 is still an example for all those very light Isis BB's failing after a few miles (seen one that allready did 40.000 miles without removal).

I agree that square taper is stiff enough for a racer weight rider - but as more "recreational" riders buy into the expensive stuff....and many break 200 lbs....then in some respects you also have to cater to them. When I look at pro team bikes and manufaccturers catalogs now there are a significant number of campy equiped bikes with someone'es new fangled crank/BB. Does it need to be that way - heck no. Is the market perception driving it that way - I'd have to say yes that many consumers "think" they need it so those who spec bikes (and now possibly Campy) as a result may be bowing to such market pressures.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum